History

In the spring of 1998,
in response to growing homelessness,
worsening conditions across the country including access to food and shelter,
and a dramatic increase in morbidity and mortality among homeless people, a
group of people formedthe Toronto
Disaster Relief Committee. In October 1998 we declared homelessness a National
Disaster. We released a report the State of Emergency Declaration,
and called for two things: first, that federal emergency relief monies be
released to communities across the country so they could provide disaster relief
for their homeless populations and second, for a long term solution, the 1%
solution – a national housing programme.

Recognizing the emergency
needs of homeless people within Toronto and because this is where we were based,
we also released a document called: Proposal for Emergency Relief Strategy
for the City of Toronto. Its purpose was twofold:

Sadly, not only our report
but similar recommendations from experts, inquest juries, and researchers were
ignored in the subsequent years. FormerCity of Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, is
widely known for refusing to meet with the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee for
a one hour briefing over 16 times over his two terms of office.

Recent events at City Hall point sharply to
the fact that our City is in serious need of a well-informed blueprint
document and political leadership to respond effectively to this humanitarian
crisis. Our goal should be to make dramatic improvements in the next 5 years
to end homelessness and build housing in this city despite the odds.

The following is a look back at what TDRC
called for in the Fall of 1998 and where we are at the close of
Winter 2005.

Proposal for Emergency Relief Strategy for
the City of Toronto (1998 – TDRC – available on www.tdrc.net)

TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY RELIEF MEASURES

“The following measures should be
instituted immediately. These measures must be temporary; that is, used for as
short a period as possible. People using these emergency resources ultimately
must be provided with appropriate, safe, permanent living situations.”

Large Shelters......

“Moss Park Armoury should be opened as an
emergency 24-hour-a- day facility to handle the overflow from existing emergency
shelter services. Similar facilities should be opened in other areas in the
city.

Rationale. In 1996, during 'Operation Cold
Snap', the military opened Moss Park Armoury as an emergency "warming facility".
This operation, triggered by the deaths of several single homeless men, was
intended to prevent further harm to individuals. It succeeded as an emergency
measure. The facility was well-used, by close to 200 people. Homeless people and
advocates alike considered it safe and clean and adequately staffed by cadets,
volunteers, public health nurses and mental health workers. Similar facilities
would serve the same purpose.”

2005 Reality Check
– armouries or similar facilities have been opened approximately 6 times since
1998. However, each year (until the winter of 2004-5) we had to mount
significant protests (literally) to achieve these openings. Then, each March or
April, the facility would close. In January of 2004, TDRC held a press
conference and asked that a federal armoury site be provided to the City for use
as an emergency shelter. Within 72 hours, the federal government offered the
Fort York Armoury but city bureaucrats said it was not needed! A community wide
fax-phone-email campaign to “open them up” was successful and we witnessed newly
elected Mayor David Miller support the opening of the Fort York Armoury. The
Mayor also visited the armoury when it opened, offering support just as leaders
in another kind of disaster would visit people in crisis. Within weeks, when the
federal government demanded the Armoury back for its own use, we saw the Mayor’s
office work to ensure the relocation of homeless people to 2 Murray St. – a site
that is now being turned into housing! In December 2004 the City, without being
forced by a protest, opened an emergency winter shelter at 110 Edward Street
with plans to keep it open until the end of May. However, the City continues to
rely on an enormous collection of volunteer, faith-based winter only, basement
only, mat only programs to provide single nights of shelter and food for
homeless people.

Smaller Specialized Shelters.....

“Other public buildings (or buildings on
short-term municipal leases) should be made available for shelter. In
particular, resources should be allocated to meet the special needs of families,
women and children, youth, aboriginal people, people with an immuno-deficiency
or chronic illness such as HIV/AIDs, and people with addictions. Some
specialized facilities will require proper ventilation to protect
immune-compromised people from airborne diseases.

Rationale: Research and inquest
recommendations point to the need for smaller shelters.”

2005 Reality
Check –
In 2004 the City of Toronto passed a Municipal bylaw which will prohibit new
shelter development in two downtown wards and create numerous barriers in
others. The City is nowhere near meeting its long term shelter plan and there is
no political will on council for shelter expansion. City Budget Chief David
Sognacki and Mayor Miller have both said they might need to close 1,000 shelter
beds due to the budget crisis. The City continues to sell off properties that
could be developed for shelter or transitional housing or safe houses.

Rationale. Homeless people are currently
forced to dwell in parks, and probably will continue to use park space until
adequate housing is built. Providing functional shelter in the parks, with
access to health services, water, bathing facilities and toilets, is humane and
healthy public policy.”

2005 Reality check – Under Mayor Mel Lastman, City Council created a
by-law making it illegal to camp in public parks. City by-law officers, public
works and parks staff, and police have routinely moved homeless people out of
parks. The province’s Safe Streets Act then added further restrictions on where
homeless people could sleep. City Council in February 2005 passed a new
municipal by-law prohibiting “camping” at Nathan Phillips Square and other civic
sites, targeted towards a particular class of people – the homeless. Homeless
people are routinely arrested, ticketed, or threatened with forced eviction of
their belongings by City workers.

Emergency Health Care......

“Emergency health relief efforts should
include the following:

outreach health care
services at all existing and new emergency sites by health care workers who
are trusted and respectful of people's special needs

a hospital discharge
protocol that ensures that homeless people requiring recuperation,
convalescence, medication, treatments etc. are not discharged "to the street"

immediate opening of
an emergency infirmary to allow individuals with illnesses such as
tuberculosis, bronchitis, flu, pneumonia, skin infections, uncontrolled
diabetes, etc. to recuperate in a safe, supervised fashion

immediate opening of
additional detox facilities, including one culturally sensitive to aboriginal
people

health strategies
that especially treat the relationship between homelessness and severe
infectious or communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis and
hepatitis. Strategies for prevention and care for those who are already
infected must be developed immediately (harm reduction, special facilities and
care for people with HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis, etc.)

Rationale. The burden of illness and death
is exacerbated by crowding, stress, hunger, lack of basic facilities for
hygiene, inadequate health care and dismantled health programs. Services must be
reconstructed to include preventive, curative and primary care.”

2005 Reality Check – emergency outreach, street nursing and curbside
health initiatives as well as the Sherbourne Health Centre’s work to develop an
infirmary continue but health workers face new and impossible challenges: in the
last 4 years - two tuberculosis outbreaks including deaths to TB and front-line
staff infected, a massive bedbug infestation throughout the emergency shelter
system, new and emerging illnesses such as the Norwalk virus. To make matters
worse, few lessons have been learned or implemented from the SARS experience.
For example, the City continues to allow crowding, overcrowding in congregate
sleeping facilities and forced nightly movement. In particular, this includes
one of the more dangerous practices - their reliance on the well meaning Out of
the Cold program. A perhaps not surprising addition to this litany of health
challenges, workers are now painfully recognizing they are facing a population
with huge palliative care needs.

"Governments must provide funding to
enable these organizations to provide adequate staffing, nutritional food,
personal hygiene supplies, clothing, bedding, indoor and outdoor space for
homeless people during this emergency period.

Rationale. These groups have been
instrumental in responding to the early stages of the homeless disaster by
providing space in their facilities, collection of sleeping bags, food and
clothing, etc. However, their resources are depleted and their volunteers over
worked, leaving them unable to respond to the floods of homeless people
requiring their service. As a result, their space remains empty for most of the
year. Their interest and commitment should be supported by government funding so
they can continue their valuable contribution.”

2005 Reality Check – the above refers primarily to the Out of the
Cold programme. The experience of recent outbreaks of tuberculosis and Toronto’s
SARS experience are serious reminders that emergency shelters must ALL meet the
UN standards for refugee camps, and at minimum the City’s own Shelter Standards.
That is not the case today, leaving hundreds of people and thousands of
volunteers at risk.

Suspend and Reassess Discriminatory
Municipal Bylaws.....

“Bylaws that limit the location of housing
and services for the poor, and that prevent homeowners creating and maintaining
adequate rental apartments, should be suspended.

Rationale. Present bylaws covertly attempt
to 'people zone' rather than zone land uses. For years, some homeowners were
prepared to renovate for rental purposes but were prevented by restrictive
bylaws. Some renovations could bring new housing on-stream (eg., basement
apartments, backyard buildings).”

2005 Reality Check – Several steps backwards have occurred in this
area. Specifically: the City’s bylaw preventing homeless people from sleeping in
parks, the Municipal Shelter Bylaw, and the Nathan Phillips Square bylaw. Not
only are bylaws preventing housing, they are now preventing homelessness.

Reopen and Keep Open Services....

“Several services assisting the homeless
have been closed, or are classified as temporary and hence due to close, or are
precarious due to insecure funding. There must be a moratorium on any loss of
services until the emergency is over.

Rationale. Closures literally dump
significant numbers of homeless people into a shelter system that has no
capacity remaining. It is one of the most harmful practices that can be enacted
on to a vulnerable population.”

2005 Reality Check – each year the City allows its winter emergency
shelter to close without adequate replacement beds or housing. Each year the
City watches the volunteer Out of the Cold program shut down and hundreds of
people pour into the street. In contrast, when TentCity was forcibly shut down by Home
Depot, advocates demanded the implementation of the City’s Emergency Response
Plan which included the opening of a replacement shelter facility (at Woodgreen
Community Centre) and ultimately a rent supplement program was won. An
additional point of concern is that workers in city and provincially funded
community outreach programs may have been placed in an ethical dilemma with
respect to how they deliver services to homeless people at City Hall and in
other locations. Workers report an inability to deliver necessary food and
sleeping gear to people at City Hall and other locations and instead are asked
to merely transport people to existing (?) shelter spaces.

Reinstate the 21.6% to Social Assistance
Benefits.....

“The reinstatement of the 21.6% is the
most important preventative measure with respect to homelessness.

Rationale. There is no question that
removing one fifth of the money impoverished households receive each month
(introduced in October 1996) has resulted in some becoming homeless and has
placed many more at immediate risk of becoming homeless and remaining homeless.
The most recent study of welfare rates in Canada found that most people living
on welfare were even poorer in 1996 than the people living on welfare in 1986.
The report by the National Council of Welfare notes that the depth of their
poverty is getting worse because benefits do not keep up with the cost of living
and because benefit levels in all provinces are well below the poverty line.”

2005 Reality Check – In addition to the above, street nurses now
comment that the most useful thing they can do for someone’s health is to assist
the person to obtain ODSP. It does not appear that the City has developed a
proactive plan or protocol to identify people in shelters who are eligible for
ODSP in order to support their transition from shelter to housing with the aid
of rent supplements.

Public Information Campaign....

“A public information campaign to explain
the nature of the crisis of homelessness is needed. The campaign would also
address basic human rights issues such as discrimination towards people on
social assistance, people of colour, people with HIV/AIDs, people with substance
issues and drug issues.

Rationale. Negative stereotypes,
hate-mongering and misinformation are harmful and work to prevent solutions. A
public campaign, local and national is needed to better inform the public about
the nature of the crisis and the short and long term risks to the men, women and
children who are homeless in our communities.”

2005 Reality Check – recent policy directions at City Hall have only
added to negative stereotypes of homeless people. Some politicians and some
media have characterized homeless people as “lazy”, “bums”, “addicts”,
“vagrants”, and suggested they should be sent out to pick up garbage from the
street. The recent bylaw on “camping” at Nathan Phillips Square is widely
considered to be a step that will lead to further targeting of homeless people
sleeping in other public and private space and was supported by the Chair of the
City’s Homeless Advisory Committee despite the unanimous decision of the
committee membership to oppose the ban.

Legal Strategy.....

“Human Rights legislation must be enforced
and tenant legal protection must be increased.

Rationale. Reports of discrimination in
housing are on the increase as are evictions. It is presently very difficult for
people who are poor to obtain legal representation.”

2005 Reality Check – It is not evident that the City has developed a
human rights “lens” through which all new city wide protocols, bylaws and
programs have been screened.

What is a Blueprint?

A caring, responsive and
proactive plan that addresses all the realities of homelessness and commits to
long-term solutions – i.e. housing in order to end homelessness within 10 years.

In
Toronto, there are more than 30,000 people annually using homeless shelters and
many tens of thousands of more who are “hidden homeless” – living in the parks
and ravines, “couch-surfing” or otherwise lacking good quality, affordable
homes. About 96,000 tenant households in Toronto are paying more than 50% of
their monthly income on rent – which puts them on the brink of homelessness.

The City has been a strong advocate for additional provincial and federal
commitments to social housing. City Council endorsed the Disaster Declaration in
1998 and reaffirmed its commitment to the 1% solution as recently as February
2005. Mayor Miller has created a special advisor in his office on housing and a
review of how the City delivers housing is currently being undertaken.

In the meantime, while we wait for a national housing programme, a serious
Toronto blueprint to alleviate and end homelessness should include the following
cornerstones:

1.
Adequate shelter.
A commitment to provide safe, emergency shelter. This must include the
enforcement of the “90% rule”, meaning that additional shelters must open once
the system is beyond 90% capacity. A commitment to phase out the Out of the Cold
programme and ensure adequate replacement beds. A commitment to enforce the
Shelter Standards.

2.
Support. Community based outreach services.
Recognition that community based services have expertise to provide services
ranging from health care to harm reduction by a variety of means including
outreach. The City must commit to support these services and consult with them.

3.
Non-discrimination.
A commitment to not criminalize or penalize homeless people. Creation of a
Mayor’s Roundtable on homelessness and housing. Appointment of a position of
Homeless Facilitator as recommended in the Anne Golden Report

4.A
City of
Toronto
Housing Program.
To create the means and mechanism to fund new social housing.

Components of a blueprint (draft)

Homelessness

keep the City’s
emergency winter shelter at 110 Edward Street open instead of allowing it to
close in May;

create an additional 200
replacement shelter beds for the city’s winter Out of the Cold program for
year round use;

develop a 2 year plan to
phase out the Out of the Cold programme and end the City’s
reliance on the faith sector for its emergency shelter needs;

create 24 hour harm
reduction centres, safe houses and specialized shelters that would
shelter/house vulnerable groups such as the elderly, women, youth and first
nations people who are on the street;

develop a City protocol
to establish the eligibility of homeless people who are in shelters for ODSP
(Ontario Disability Support Program), then facilitate their access to ODSP and
housing, thus freeing up shelter spaces for those still sleeping outside;

Housing

set a Year One target of
3,000 new truly affordable homes. The targets set in the
"From the Street into Homes" report are a substantial step-down from the
Golden recommendations, and those targets were already overly modest. Toronto
needs to have targets for new social (subsidized) housing that reflect the
desperate need and are realistic.

match re-allocated funds
with at least an additional $14.2 million. The “From the
Street into Homes” report correctly notes that the bulk of the funding for new
social (subsidized) homes must come from senior levels of government. However,
the city needs to commit new dollars to demonstrate that it is prepared to be
a serious partner in creating new homes. As a start, the city should double
its commitment to new housing by providing $14.2 million in addition to the
$14.2 million in existing funding. This would send a strong signal to senior
levels of government. The city can get these funds either from other city
programs (such as the police) or through tax revenues.

These measures constitute
just the beginning of a blueprint. It’s clear to me that the challenge ahead is
to understand what is happening at City Hall that is shifting the power base,
and the respect that has been most recently shown on this issue by the Mayor’s
office.